View Mobile Site
 

Ask the Expert

Signal Photos

 

Legalize marijuana — but with restrictions

Posted: July 30, 2014 2:00 a.m.
Updated: July 30, 2014 2:00 a.m.
 

There is no doubt that the legalization of marijuana is gaining favor throughout the country, and I have to say that I am for it — but with some very strong reservations.

I’m for it because legalization should reduce crime between warring peddlers, raise revenue for cities or states, reduce the number of inmates in our overcrowded prisons, be a medical benefit for many and, finally, let adults enjoy a relaxing high.

I have two reservations: One is that driving under the influence should be dealt with even stronger than we now deal with drunken drivers.

A marijuana high distorts the perception of time and space.

A true story, told by comic Orson Bean when he was on the Johnny Carson show, illustrates the point: He was driving on a New England causeway and was stopped by the police.

“What’s the problem?” he asked the officer.

“Well,” replied the officer, “how fast do you think you were going?”

“I feel certain that I wasn’t going much over 65,” Bean answered.

“We had you clocked at 15 miles per hour,” said the officer.

Anyone who gets behind the wheel while under the influence of marijuana is a great danger to himself and anyone else on the same road.

My second reservation has to do with those under 18 years of age. There must be strong controls to keep pot out of the hands of youngsters.

Adults with an addictive personality might have problems dealing with it, but because they are adults they would have a chance of handling it. Youngsters have no chance.

The marijuana high becomes the everyday desire. Pot and being with druggie friends becomes everything. No interest in school or anything else.

It’s a tragedy in the making, and as a retired teacher I’ve witnessed it first hand.

Ask parents who are suffering through it, watching their child in the process of ruining his or her potential and feeling helpless to put a stop to it.

So, if marijuana becomes legal, it should come with strong protective laws.

 

Comments

EgbertSouse4U: Posted: July 30, 2014 11:29 a.m.

"A marijuana high distorts the perception of time and space."

Where did you come up with this ridiculous factoid? You have no idea what you are talking about.


17trillion: Posted: July 30, 2014 11:51 a.m.

"A marijuana high distorts the perception of time and space."

Laughing....


ricketzz: Posted: July 30, 2014 12:56 p.m.

If it distorts time it wouldn't be so well regarded among jazz musicians. It strengthens ones sense of time. An impaired pot head won't attempt to drive. If you are too high to drive a cup of coffee will get you good to go, after the caffeine kicks in.

The impairment of eating or air guitar-ing behind the wheel is more dangerous. What are the stats from Colorado?


itzreality: Posted: July 30, 2014 3:36 p.m.

I am still trying to figure out what all the noise is about legalizing marijuana! Is it that our elected officals are not in the pockets of the industry such as the liquior and tobacco industry?
I do not see all this outrage about the liquior industry! 88,000 people are killed or injuried due to drunk driving and most of the time our elected officals seem to pass it off. Or the offenders get off with a slap on the wrist and go back and do it again!
We have liquior stores on every block yet all this hype about marijuana stores? They worry about it getting into the hands of minors, look at the liquior sales.
They claim that marijuana leads to medical problems and use of higher drugs, well for those with short memories think about what the effects and deaths from alcohol are! Liver conditions, lung disease drunk drivers that kill and mane just to name a few.
They need to develop a test for marijuana as they did for drunks. We need an even playing field for both and we have to get to the real reasons why all this hype!


tech: Posted: July 30, 2014 11:39 p.m.

The "War on Drugs" exists because it boosts employment for the government entities that "control" it and asset forfeiture without due process is very profitable.


Jackk: Posted: July 31, 2014 8:05 a.m.

Next you will want more studies.

Why not just talk to Willie Nelson and Tommy Chong.

Theres a hundred years of experience with pot right there.

Do you want Willie laughing in your face Mr Myers?


ricketzz: Posted: July 31, 2014 9:59 a.m.

From Family Guy episode 420: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-drTpJN2KNQ


ricketzz: Posted: July 31, 2014 10:01 a.m.

Note that the video had to be recorded with a handy cam. Notice how hard it is to make a recording of TV that you can keep? That's no accident. That's "freedom" Hollywood style.


dudeman1961: Posted: July 31, 2014 10:48 p.m.

'distortion'

that's the idea, dude...

Take an anthropology class: the first high (alcohol, mushrooms, peyote, pot) was to see if it was edible, drinkable, the second time was ON PURPOSE.


ricketzz: Posted: August 1, 2014 11:09 a.m.

Tax dollars without the liver disease. Who (besides Seagrams) can't love it?


Lotus8: Posted: August 1, 2014 7:04 p.m.

Legalize it now. Forget about taxing it unless folks want to go and buy the designer stuff at a store. If you let folks grow it in their backyard the drug war and all the related street crime, human trafficking, etc. drops off of a cliff. The stuff is called weed because it will literally grow like a weed in some pretty harsh conditions. It is no worse than alcohol for the body (neither is part of a healthy lifestyle, don't get me wrong), in fact your liver will thank you for lighting up rather than tilting back a cocktail.


ricketzz: Posted: August 2, 2014 10:53 a.m.

Lotus8. There is an active ingredient in weed that appears to make tumors shrink. That ingredient is THC. Feds have quashed all research in this country. Now that's wack.


chefgirl358: Posted: August 2, 2014 11:58 p.m.

Ricketzz, you keep insisting that pot cures or helps kill cancer. Prove it...

I call bs on that one.


martian: Posted: August 3, 2014 2:27 a.m.

How does a person get to work if they are prescribed medical marijuana? Or do they just stay home and be on welfare?


ricketzz: Posted: August 3, 2014 10:53 a.m.

"Antitumor Effects
One study in mice and rats suggested that cannabinoids may have a protective effect against the development of certain types of tumors. During this 2-year study, groups of mice and rats were given various doses of THC by gavage. A dose-related decrease in the incidence of hepatic adenoma tumors and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) was observed in the mice. Decreased incidences of benign tumors (polyps and adenomas) in other organs (mammary gland, uterus, pituitary, testis, and pancreas) were also noted in the rats. In another study, delta-9-THC, delta-8-THC, and cannabinol were found to inhibit the growth of Lewis lung adenocarcinoma cells in vitro and in vivo . In addition, other tumors have been shown to be sensitive to cannabinoid-induced growth inhibition."

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/healthprofessional/page4

One probably gets to work like everyone else gets to work. You cannot stay home and be on "welfare". It is for specific conditions and only lasts a finite period of time. Section 8 housing and SNAP is possible if you are severely disabled. No picnic.


chefgirl358: Posted: August 4, 2014 12:18 p.m.

Ricketzz, people are on welfare and unemployment for YEARS, as well as state disability, Section 8, SNAP, etc. They might not be on all of them at the same time, but people who know how to work the system are NOT employed at all and continue to collect checks indefinitely.

In reference to your pot study, yes you found a study (sponsored by whom?) that has results indicating that it MIGHT help shrink tumors. However, there are multiple studies done over many many years that also point to the fact that marijuana causes certain cancers (lung, mouth, throat, etc.), so there's that. If you want to smoke pot, fine. But don't try to make it sound like it's some great thing that has health benefits to it. It may help mask pain or other health issues people have, but it certainly doesn't cure them or actually provide health benefits to them. It doesn't make rheumatoid arthritis disappear, or get rid of pain from other ailments or diseases, it simply makes you high enough to mask them...just like prescription medication from a real doctor that was created for that very purpose.

If someone has cancer and wants to smoke pot, I have zero issue with that, but I will never buy into the idea that it's some great thing and has all of these great benefits and will solve all sorts of problems. Peddle your Kool-aid and hokey theories somewhere else.


Lotus8: Posted: August 4, 2014 7:45 p.m.

Who cares if THC cures cancer, or if people need it medically. As long as people ingesting it don't get behind the wheel of a car or in some other way endanger you, why do you care? Saying that folks using it would just be lazy and on welfare is a joke. I suppose all people who drink alcohol are in a similar state? You don't think there aren't CEO's who've had a smoke or two? Heck, even our current president was the head of the Choom Gang before attending an Ivy League institution and becoming president.


martian: Posted: August 4, 2014 9:57 p.m.

It may shrink tumors but it also shrinks brains.


chefgirl358: Posted: August 5, 2014 12:25 a.m.

Lotus8, because they WILL get behind the wheel, that's what stupid teens and young adults DO all the time because they feel invincible and that it won't happen to them. I think tons of people smoke pot all the time, and I think they're total freaking idiots for it, I don't give a crap who they are or what they do for a living, they're stupid if they use drugs.

I was responding to Ricketzz regarding welfare, those comments weren't my focus, just a response.


chefgirl358: Posted: August 5, 2014 12:26 a.m.

Lotus,

P.s. Our current president is about the biggest idiot to ever walk this earth, thanks for proving my point.


martian: Posted: August 5, 2014 12:59 a.m.

Go for it and by the time you are 60 everything will be shrunk in your body but you enjoyed your pot. Just don't be getting behind the wheel in Santa Clarita as I am still shocked by the crazy drivers. The valley drivers don't drive 55 and 65 mph on surface street.


ricketzz: Posted: August 5, 2014 10:37 a.m.

chefgirl358 is repeating prohibitionist propaganda. Cannibus contains a lot of toxins that SHOULD give one lesions and tumors, but one doesn't get them. The suspicious producers of the cite are the National Cancer Institute, a government agency. They can get legal pot.

If you lie to the kids about reefer they won't believe warnings about the hard stuff as much. Your "cred" is shredded. Does chefgirl358 consume adult beverages?

I am way over 60 and never drive if even slightly impaired. (Or at night in this police state of a bedroom community.) Nothing has shrunk abnormally.


chefgirl358: Posted: August 5, 2014 2:06 p.m.

Ricketzz, there are dozens if not hundreds of studies conducted over decades addressing the fact that pot kills brain cells, and anybody who has ever seen or spoken to a total stoner for 5 minutes knows that is true. Are you even denying that? Are you seriously insisting that there is not ONE single negative thing about pot? Because that is the biggest crock of bs I've ever heard. There is almost nothing that doesn't have a down side to it and is just all rainbows and puppy dogs.

You found ONE study that says pot MIGHT help shrink tumors and you are trying to debunk tons of years of research and studies based on that?

You can't compare alcohol to pot, it's like comparing apples to bread, both are food but are entirely different entities. Both are drugs but all similarities end there.


martian: Posted: August 5, 2014 8:56 p.m.

If you are a member of Kaiser, they will not prescribe medical marijuana and my doctor thinks it is a hoax for drug abusers to find an easier way to get pot.


chefgirl358: Posted: August 5, 2014 11:52 p.m.

Well of course Kaiser doesn't prescribe it, no actual legitimate doctor would!


itzreality: Posted: August 5, 2014 11:59 p.m.

So Martian you state that marijuana kills brain cells, so what about all damage that booze does, drunk drivers, liver conditions, resporitory problems, addiction, destruction of families and lets not also forget that over 87,000 innocent people are killed or injured each year because of drunks on the road.
If we are going to be so picky about marijuana control then we must put the same controls on booze and stop this double standard.
It has been proven that marijuana cures tunors and cancers! Now what does booze do????


ricketzz: Posted: August 6, 2014 10:32 a.m.

Marijuana doesn't kill you: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1380837/

You are correct that alcohol and pot are 2 different things. Alcohol causes tens of thousands of premature deaths every year and pot causes none. Alcohol is a solvent that bathes your brain cells in "paint thinner". Pot attaches to pot receptors in the brain, because nature made the plant mimic internal secretions in humans. The plant is smart. Alcohol was discovered when somebody drank the slime under some rotten fruit. Grotty to the max.


hopeful: Posted: August 6, 2014 12:14 p.m.

It seems that many of the people, who are against legalizing marijuana don't know many people that smoke, other than teenagers, who are determined to get "high" with whatever substance is available.

I do not smoke, simply because I don't like the feeling, however, I know quite a few people who do smoke. One particular person I know smokes to help ease his chronic pain. This person used to take legal narcotics for his pain, but found these "legal" pain meds were terribly destructive. Thankfully, marijuana does provide some pain relief, and this man now has a better quality of life.

Another, very successful couple I know, have been smoking pot since they were young adults. They raised two, very successful kids, and have a life that most people can only dream about. Unless you knew them, you would probably be shocked to find out that they smoke pot, but their 30+ years of smoking has NOT hampered them at all.

My 63 year old sister has smoked pot her entire adult life. She and her husband own a successful business, raised 3 great kids, and she is the best grandma I have ever seen. Rather than drink alcohol, she chooses to smoke, but again, unless you knew her personally, you would never guess that she smoked.

I will agree that teenagers will test the limits, but whether marijuana is legal or not, it won't matter. Alcohol is illegal for people under 21, but that doesn't stop kids from drinking. The same is true with marijuana and other drugs.

Bottom line is that we should STOP trying to regulate social behaviors with laws, unless one behavior harms someone else. Yes, people shouldn't drive while high, just like they shouldn't drive while drunk because that could harm innocent people. However, if someone wants to come home from work and light up a joint, without driving afterwards, then that should NOT be someone else's business.


tech: Posted: August 6, 2014 1:01 p.m.

I agree with your summation, hopeful. Each household should make their own choices as long as they don't impinge on the liberty of their neighbors or community.

SWAT style no knock home invasions for marijuana? Really? That puts everyone at risk and loads up our criminal justice system unnecessarily.

One difference: I only smoke cigars but don't think there's anything healthy about inhaling burning leaves.


hopeful: Posted: August 6, 2014 1:22 p.m.

tech wrote: "One difference: I only smoke cigars but don't think there's anything healthy about inhaling burning leaves."

I am not arguing that marijuana is healthy or without any ill effects. There have been studies that show health benefits (reduce seizures, reduce pain, etc), but there are also studies that show marijuana causes other health problems. Until they have much more evidence, the verdict is still out.

I am just so sick of the government determining what people can and can't do. I believe that adults should be able to decide what is best for themselves. As long as I (or any other adult) don't intrude on your rights, why should the government (or any other adult) dictate how I (and others live)?


chefgirl358: Posted: August 6, 2014 5:36 p.m.

Hopeful,

Because that desire for pot causes grows in forests, most, but not all of which are illegal (lots on Indian land now to avoid interference from govt...the Indians are NOT the culprits and are against legalization) which absolutely annhilates the environment, wildlife, rivers, forests, etc., and causes grave danger to people in those outdoor areas (hikers, etc.), the demand for pot or any other drug, causes crime.

I get that lots of people smoke dope and just sit in their house minding their own business, but a lot of people can't handle their high and they end up a total train wreck in rehabs, which are now often located in communities like ours dragging down our house values and having to deal with losers milling around your neighborhood.

Or maybe you have a nice neighborhood and all of the sudden a bunch of losers are hanging around one of those nifty dispensaries that popped into a nearby strip mall. Or maybe somebody sets up an illegal grow in the house next door to yours and the thing catches fire and burns your house down...this does happen.

I could go on and on, but there are plenty of negative side effects to society as a whole because someone thinks they are just smoking a joint in their own house and it's not bothering anybody. A lot of bad things happened in order for that pot to get to you.

THAT's why it's a problem. Alcohol is a drug, but it doesn't tear up forests or cause people to commit crazy crimes in order to obtain the revenue or the product associated with it. (I am in no way, shape or form saying that people who are drunk don't commit crimes...they certainly do, but generally just things of stupidity and not with the same level of ruthlessness or danger of drug runners or people who try to jack the dispensaries, dealers, users, etc.)


hopeful: Posted: August 6, 2014 6:53 p.m.

As I said earlier, I don't smoke marijuana, so it won't matter to me, personally if they legalize it or not. However, I have to disagree with a lot of your assertions that marijuana, itself, is the reason for all the problems you point out. In my humble opinion, I think most of the issued you pointed out would be reduced IF marijuana was legalized. No longer would criminals be forced to grow marijuana in forests; people and/or dispensaries can grow their own, whether that was in the back yards, or small farms.

Dispensaries, and the location of places that sell marijuana is a whole different issue. Just like any other business, cities can regulate where these dispensaries are located to not impact neighborhoods. Besides, when and if it became legal, I would imagine there would be a lot more delivery services, direct shipping, etc, so dispensaries may not even be needed.

You are right, however, that "a lot of people can't handle their high and they end up a total train wreck in rehabs," but that is the case now where there are tons of alcohol and drug rehabs...heck, there are rehabs for all kinds of addicts, who don't even use drugs and alcohol...


chefgirl358: Posted: August 6, 2014 6:59 p.m.

Hopeful, a lot of those dispensaries, etc., are already allowed to grow it legally, but they set up illegal grows to avoid paying money for electricity, water, etc. However, the vast majority of illegal grows are totally illegitimate, but there are some that have legitimate businesses.

I do see what you're saying and I don't disagree with a lot of it, but I just wish people would see that a lot of bad things probably happened to get that "harmless" joint that isn't bothering anyone else, into their living room. You know what I mean? Kind of like how a lot of people seem to think hamburgers originate at McDonalds and don't have a sordid background at feed lots and processing plants.


hopeful: Posted: August 6, 2014 7:11 p.m.

Chefgirl358 also wrote: "Alcohol is a drug, but it doesn't tear up forests or cause people to commit crazy crimes in order to obtain the revenue or the product associated with it."

Have you considered that the whole reason people commit these crazy crimes you mention is BECAUSE marijuana is illegal? Do you not remember U.S History? When alcohol was banned during prohibition, crime was rampant, the Mafia and the gang's death toll rose while the gangs fought over profits and who would control the illegal alcohol in each city.

Making something illegal empowers gangs and criminals, not the other way around, in my opinion.


hopeful: Posted: August 6, 2014 7:22 p.m.

I was typing when you posted your last response, Chefgirl358, and I do see your point. Illegal drugs is a huge problem, which has caused so much crime in some areas. Heck, look at what is happening on our borders, where thousands of people are fleeing Central American because of the crime that has spawned in that area due to American's thirst for illegal drugs.

I just think the war of drugs is an absolute failure, and I truly believe that our government's policy to try to ban all these illegal substances IS the problem. Make drugs legal, and we remove a huge reason why Central America is steeped is violence. I am going to research Amsterdam and other countries to see how their more liberal drug policies have effected their crime levels and addiction rates...I also hope that people are studying all the positives and negatives to legal marijuana in Colorado and Washington State...


dodgersfan: Posted: August 6, 2014 11:15 p.m.

Richard, consider this:

"I’m for it because legalization should reduce crime between warring peddlers"
- There will be no reduction in crime because pot dealers will just start pushing the harder drugs (coke, meth, etc.). Do you honestly think they will just 'go out of business'? What you will see is an INCREASE in narcotics.

"raise revenue for cities or states"
- How well does our state government manage money? And do you really think we will see any of it?

"be a medical benefit for many "
- I bet doing meth or heroine would probably make you feel "better" if you were really suffering from an illness. Should we start encouraging this practice as well?

"let adults enjoy a relaxing high"
- Is this really the country we want to be? A bunch of unproductive potheads? Honestly, I don't care if you want to smoke weed, that's your choice. Most adults who want pot are already getting it without much problem. However, I do think making it legal will increase the number of teens who wouldn't have otherwise tried it. Underage drinking is so common in this country, probably because most kids figure, "hey if it's legal, it can't be THAT bad for you". Making pot legal sends the same message. It's hard enough for our kids to stay out of trouble, and legalizing pot will make it harder.

"My second reservation has to do with those under 18 years of age. There must be strong controls to keep pot out of the hands of youngsters."
- Ummm .... pot is ILLEGAL now and yet plenty of 18-year-olds have no problem getting it. How do you think we can implement strong 'controls' if it were LEGAL?


chefgirl358: Posted: August 7, 2014 12:09 a.m.

Amsterdam has a drug and heroin / HIV problem that makes the U.S. pale by comparison.


chefgirl358: Posted: August 7, 2014 12:11 a.m.

Dodgers fan, EXACTLY!


hopeful: Posted: August 7, 2014 12:37 a.m.

Here are some interesting articles that dispute your assertions, chefgirl358.

http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/netherlands_v_us#sthash.2DZR7Q2q.ZminSruZ.dpbs

http://www.cedro-uva.org/lib/reinarman.dutch.html

http://www.eastbayexpress.com/LegalizationNation/archives/2011/09/22/going-dutch-teen-marijuana-use-in-the-us-vs-netherlands-the-full-interview-with-cal-professor-robert-maccoun

http://www.japanhemp.org/drugfacts/nl_usa.htm

http://www.drugpolicy.org/blog/america-take-note-three-lessons-holland-learned-after-decades-evolving-its-drug-policy

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117691/aids-hit-united-states-harder-other-developed-countries-why

I am not saying that you and dodgersfan don't have valid points, because you both do. However, we need to find a way to solve some of our current problems, and thus far, the war on drugs in the U.S. has been a total and complete failure. What do you two suggest that will minimize our current drug problem?


martian: Posted: August 7, 2014 1:43 a.m.

You mentioned Holland and it is now realizing their liberal laws of prostitution and pot are way out of hand and are trying to turn it around. I have travelled a lot in different countries and have never been around people who smoke pot. Alcohol is far different than pot and so is the cost but if you are an addict, both can do harm. I can only visualize people driving and going to work, start having the giggles and being a productive employee. Maybe this is why the drivers in SCV drive as they are stoned. I will never condone pot and don't believe all the myths potheads want you to believe.


martian: Posted: August 7, 2014 3:13 a.m.

Read about Colorado and their illegal pot growing and how it is effecting the legal pot growers. So now you are going to have a state full of crime and one will try to out do the other.


hopeful: Posted: August 7, 2014 10:35 a.m.

I am open to any ideas that will minimize our drug problem. I do know that some liberal policies make the problem worse, and in fact, all one needs to do is look at Santa Cruz, California to know that to be true. However, I haven't heard anyone coming up with any ideas to solve the problem, and the war on drugs has NOT worked.

I sure hope that researchers are studying Colorado and Washington State. Those two states should be able to provide many answers within the next few years.

As I said before, I do not smoke, but I know quite a few people who do. I would MUCH rather be around someone, who smoked marijuana than some loud drunks, but to each his own, in my opinion.

On a side note, I wouldn't assume that you have "never" been around people that smoke. If you ever had a conversation with the smokers that I know, you would never known they smoked. With e-cigarette type methods of smoking, you can't even smell the marijuana now-a-days.


hopeful: Posted: August 7, 2014 10:59 a.m.

Here are some more articles that support chefgirl358, dodgersfan, and martian's assertions:

http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2012/01/12/should-we-legalize-drugs-and-prostitution-like-ron-paul-wants/

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/geneveith/2013/02/how-dutch-legalizing-of-prostitution-drugs-euthanasia-is-working-out/

Obviously, decriminalization or legalization of drugs or prostitution is a complicated issue. I sincerely hope that research is being done, and that policies will be formed based on that information.


chefgirl358: Posted: August 7, 2014 1:40 p.m.

Hopeful, one thing I disagree on is that I can smell pot, and I can smell it a mile away, on anybody.

The war on drugs has not worked, and I truly believe it's because they haven't thrown enough resources at it or attacked the heart of it hard enough, and here's the key...do it constantly and consistently, and indefinitely. They should rip out every single illegal grow in the country and absolutely hammer these ghettos with huge saturation patrol operations, target the dealers and get rid of this crap. The problem has been inconsistency in addressing it. If you are consistent with having ZERO tolerance for issues and just keep hammering away at it, it absolutely makes a difference.

A great example is the police/deputy beach team at Malibu. They have absolutely zero tolerance for alcohol consumption, glass on the beach, nudes or dogs on the beach. They have a team of deps who do nothing but look to enforce those issues from Memorial Day through Labor Day and after years of that, word is out and they simply do NOT have issues there like they have at other beaches. They started that team because of the issues that used to occur there every summer. The city pays a lot of money for that team to operate and it's worth every dime. It's a safe, clean beach to go to without a bunch of drunk jerks on the beach or the road.


hopeful: Posted: August 7, 2014 2:07 p.m.

Thanks for your comments, Chefgirl358. On some of the points, we will have to agree to disagree, but on others, I will await more research since I believe the verdict is still out.

I wonder if anyone has seriously looked into whether there is a correlation between family dynamics and drug use. Not that I believe that parents are always responsible (I don't believe that), but I would be curious what environment factors contribute to some kids (and adults) being more inclined to take drugs (including alcohol) than others. I look at my siblings, and I am the ONLY one out of five, who does NOT take drugs of some kind (other than having wine or other drink periodically). My parents are super conservative, but I did grow up watching them have their "martini time," when dad got home from work...we kids were not allowed to bother them for that cocktail hour.

I might just have to do my own research projects :)


martian: Posted: August 7, 2014 6:35 p.m.

If you have to have something like drugs, pot and alcohol you are definitely an addict and need professional help. The majority of companies today do drug testing. If you can't pass a drug test, do you sit on your ass all day and smoke pot?


hopeful: Posted: August 7, 2014 7:29 p.m.

Martian wrote: "The majority of companies today do drug testing. If you can't pass a drug test, do you sit on your ass all day and smoke pot?"

Considering the pot smokers I know, almost all of whom are successful and financially secure, I would have to argue with your assertion that the "majority of companies today do drug testing" and your assumption, therefore, is that pot smokers sit on their "ass all day and smoke pot."

My sister, who has smoked pot for the past 40+ years, owns a success business. The highly successful couple I referred to in an earlier post, both have high-paying, high-stress jobs; one of them has worked for the same company for 20+ years, moving up the ladder, while the other one has worked in the same industry, but at 2 different companies, and she too has moved up the ranks.

I am not disputing that there are some people, who choose to sit around all day, feeding off the public trough while they smoke pot and do whatever type of other drugs, but to assume that ALL or even most marijuana users are lazy or drug addicts, is pretty ignorant.


martian: Posted: August 8, 2014 12:07 a.m.

What you are saying is your sister has been breaking the law for 40 years and driving under the influence of drugs. Look at how many homeless we have and the majority who got there was because of pot. You don't go up the ladder today in an reputable company as you can be asked to take a drug test at any time. You can not obtain any government clearance if you are using any kind of drugs. If you are arrested you can lose your license and may be fired.


hopeful: Posted: August 8, 2014 12:40 a.m.

I not going to argue with you, Martian, but I know what I know. Question - do you ever have a drink when you get home from work? If so, in my opinion, there is no difference between you and my sister. I didn't say she smokes pot, then goes out driving...

Again, I choose NOT to take drugs, including marijuana, but I do have a glass of wine here and there with dinner. I guess I don't understand what is so different between my glass of wine, and my sister's decision to not drink wine, but to smoke a little bit here and there.

For some jobs, it is super important that they drug test, but for other jobs, not so much. I think that every company has a right to drug test, if that is what they choose to do, but with my research, it appears that even when the majority of the companies drug test as part of the employment process, most do not do random testing on an on-going basis.

Just because I know some pot smokers, none of them to my knowledge are addicted and smoke on a daily or regular basis (just like most of my friends do not drink alcohol on a daily basis). Theoretically,if any of my "marijuana-smoking" friends were to look for a new job, all they needed to do was not smoke for 30 days, so their drug test would be clean. On the other hand, alcohol metabolizes much quicker, so an alcoholic can easily pass a drug test, but does that make the alcoholic a better employee?


martian: Posted: August 8, 2014 1:54 a.m.

I have an occasional glass of wine, but it is with a meal and this is not on a regular basis. There is a big difference between wine and pot. Furthermore, I can't even stand the smell of pot and the same with cigarettes.
The government will not make much money on pot as there are already drug wars starting in Colorado with the illicit drug growers selling for less.


ricketzz: Posted: August 8, 2014 10:54 a.m.

In California they can test you pre-employment or after an accident. No random testing is allowed for ordinary workers in typical jobs. Commercial drivers are different. Pilots are different. No polygraphs either.


chefgirl358: Posted: August 8, 2014 9:29 p.m.

I'm sorry to say that I know several local school teachers and every single one of them smokes dope, one of them actually grows it and has said she won't care if her kids smoke pot at home.

Martian, so not all jobs drug test, in fact I'd say most do not. Even if they do, with one of those medical pot cards, I'm not sure if they can be excluded from hiring or fired.

Ricketzz, cops and fire are all randomly tested routinely.


ricketzz: Posted: August 9, 2014 10:16 a.m.

They are not typical workers. They are responsible for others besides themselves and they typically travel with lots of firepower. I'm surprised that the unions let them test cops and firefighters for weed. The basic drug test given people tests for PCP but not Vicodin.


ricketzz: Posted: August 9, 2014 10:27 a.m.

Caffeine is more dangerous than pot, by several orders of magnitude. More impairment behind the wheel, too.


chefgirl358: Posted: August 9, 2014 9:37 p.m.

Ricketzz, they test them for everything, the same way most employers do and the way most tests for at home kits for your teens works. I worked for Home Depo once years ago and they test workers for drugs. I've never even heard of anyone testing only for PCP, that doesn't even make sense due to the fact that it's so minimally used. Typically they look for pot, meth, prescription meds, coke, etc.

Where do you come up with these statements?


martian: Posted: August 10, 2014 1:57 a.m.

The majority of large companies test for drugs today, all government workers and all sub contractor employees associated with government workers, all aerospace companies, including NASA, JPL, all hospital workers, all city agencies, Microsoft, investment and banking employees, MacDonald workers, pilots, bus drivers, truck drivers and I could go on and on. If anyone in the company suspects you are using drugs, you can be retested at anytime.


ricketzz: Posted: August 10, 2014 12:55 p.m.

In California employees are protected against random, without cause, searches.

"When determining whether a drug test was legal, California courts balance the employer’s reason for testing against the employee’s legitimate expectation of privacy. California has recognized that employees start with a stronger claim here: Employees already have a job (and a work history the employer can use to evaluate their performance), which gives them more of a stake in the process and may give the employer less of a need to test.
An employer that has a reasonable suspicion that an employee is using drugs may be on safe legal ground in testing, provided that the suspicion is based on objective facts. Random testing is more controversial, although courts have upheld random testing for very safety-sensitive positions."
- http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/california-laws-drug-testing.html


ricketzz: Posted: August 10, 2014 12:59 p.m.

Drivers are the biggest class of people who must pass mandatory screens. This is the test mandated by the Department of Transportation:

>Marijuana (THC)
>Cocaine
>Amphetamines
Amphetamine
Methampheamine
MDMA
MDA
MDEA
>Opiates
Codeine
Morphine
Heroin
>Phencyclidine (PCP)

http://www.dot.gov/odapc/part-40-dot-5-panel-notice


chefgirl358: Posted: August 10, 2014 8:00 p.m.

Ricketzz,

Bottom line...Most companies (which are a large percentage) that drug test likely test for pretty much everything.

If I was an employer I certainly would test randomly and often, for everything. And anyone who tested dirty, would be axed.


martian: Posted: August 10, 2014 9:14 p.m.

An employee can be terminated at any time and they do not have to give you notice and you can quit at any time without notice. If a company has a no drug policy and your supervisor is suspicious of your behavior, you can be drug tested at any time or quit your job.


chefgirl358: Posted: August 11, 2014 12:30 p.m.

Martian, exactly!


ricketzz: Posted: August 13, 2014 9:50 a.m.

Pot heads are better workers. That has been proven repeatedly. A smart supervisor wouldn't make waves as long as the work gets done.


CaptGene: Posted: August 13, 2014 10:10 a.m.

cricketzz: "Pot heads are better workers. That has been proven repeatedly"

Then it should be easy for you to post a couple of links to back up your claim, yet you didn't. I would have figured an award winning producer would have thought to do that.


chefgirl358: Posted: August 13, 2014 11:41 a.m.

Ricketzz, BS! Where are you getting that from? You just make up the most bizarre statements and present them as facts, when it's totally untrue.

In my younger years, I worked around plenty of potheads and they were the WORST! They are totally out of it, slow, unproductive, not cognizant of their surroundings or reading other people and have zero ability to concentrate on any particular thing. I hate druggies period, but at least you could count on tweakers to get things done!


ricketzz: Posted: August 14, 2014 11:34 a.m.

chefgirl358 Society makes pot heads behave in stereotypical manners, not the weed. You only know the Spiccolis.

Gerald Ford deep sixed a US government research project because the findings were too horrible for the People to see.

http://www.electricemperor.com/eecdrom/HTML/EMP/15/ECH15_13.HTM

“no impairment of physiological, sensory and perceptual-motor performance, tests of concept formation, abstracting ability and cognitive style and tests of memory.” These Jamaicans had smoked anywhere from six to 31 years (16.6 mean average) and the average age at the first puff was at 12 years and six months.

"..no difference was found in plasma testosterone, no difference in total nutrition, slightly higher performance on the intelligence sub-tests (not statistically significant), and “a basic measure of cell-mediated immunity … was no less vigorous in the users…”

Finally, “Users in our matched pair sample smoked marijuana in addition to as many tobacco cigarettes as did their partners. Yet their airways were, if anything, a bit healthier than their matches.

“We must tentatively conclude either that marijuana has no harmful effects on such passages or that it actually offers some slight protection against the harmful effects of tobacco smoke.

No “Stepping Stone”/Gateway Effect

As to the stepping-stone or gateway drug charges leveled against cannabis: “The use of hard drugs is as yet virtually unknown among working class Jamaicans"

In America during the late 1800s cannabis was used in treating addiction. Opiate, chloral hydrate, and alcohol addicts were successfully treated with potent cannabis extracts."

Here's some more repressed science:

"Although no positive or negative neurobehavioral effects of prenatal exposure were found at 3 days of life using the Brazelton examination, there were significant differences between the exposed and nonexposed neonates at the end of the first month. Comparing the two groups, the neonates of mothers who used marijuana showed better physiological stability at 1 month and required less examiner facilitation to reach an organized state and become available for social stimulation. The results of the comparison of neonates of the heavy-marijuana-using mothers and those of the nonusing mothers were even more striking. The heavily exposed neonates were more socially responsive and were more autonomically stable at 30 days than their matched counterparts. The quality of their alertness was higher; their motor and autonomic systems were more robust; they were less irritable; they were less likely to demonstrate any imbalance of tone; they needed less examiner facilitation to become organized; they had better self-regulation; and were judged to be more rewarding for caregivers than the neonates of nonusing mothers at 1 month of age."
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/medical/can-babies.htm


chefgirl358: Posted: August 14, 2014 1:07 p.m.

Ricketzz,

The bottom line is, I believe it's POSSIBLE but NOT proven at this time, that pot MAY help people with certain medical issues. I do not and will NEVER believe that it makes people more productive or has actual positive health benefits (such as your curing cancer claim).

I do know for a FACT that pot grows in forests are an absolute environmental disaster and it is damaging pristine areas, wildlife and habitat to the point of no return. I also know that grows in houses are very deadly, often ending in fires (to neighboring homes if it spreads) and the grows in houses all by themselves are deadly due to the lack of oxygen - people have to wear respirators or they'll go unconscious...yeah that sounds like a healthy thing to have!

I believe that society is far better off without people using drugs, but I know that they will anyway and since it is more widespread than ever, I truly believe that our society's drug nightmares have only just begun. I think we are going to end up with DUI's skyrocketing in states where it's legal, as well as more and more and more crime, rehab centers, and overall a bunch of lowlife losers scattered throughout our country.

It's something we clearly will never agree on.


CaptGene: Posted: August 14, 2014 1:45 p.m.

The same guy that is "leery" of recently edited wikis uses pro legalization sites to prove his case. Amazing.

cricketzz: "Pot heads are better workers. That has been proven repeatedly"

Still waiting.


ricketzz: Posted: August 15, 2014 10:51 a.m.

chefgirl: Forest grows are there because of prohibition, not the pot culture. Coffee is a drug. Wine is a drug. Traffic fatalities in Colorado are dropping. Alcohol is a solvent that numbs nerves.


chefgirl358: Posted: August 15, 2014 12:28 p.m.

Ricketzz, bs! That is part of it, but the other part is because these a.h.'s DON'T care about our environment or wildlife because they want to grow their dope using resources that are free to them, regardless of the level of destruction they cause. They grow in the forest so they can divert streams and rivers and not get a water bill, they use natural sun so they don't pay high electric bilks, etc. If it's legal, a bunch of jerks will still have grows illegally planted where they shouldn't because it doesn't cost them anything to do it that way.


CaptGene: Posted: August 15, 2014 3:19 p.m.

cricketzz: "Pot heads are better workers. That has been proven repeatedly"

Still waiting.


martian: Posted: August 16, 2014 2:50 a.m.

How do you know they are better workers as they are already breaking the law by driving to work stoned? Most people I see who are grossly overweight are using pot. I know two young men that smoke pot and drink; one is having severe psychological problems and they are both 200 lbs overweight from all the munchies. Their health is being ruined and one already has a liver problem.


ricketzz: Posted: August 18, 2014 10:16 a.m.

Almost all the studies are about Jamaican, for some reason.

"Whatever the real or perceived effects on individual productivity,
the lateral cooperation in work efforts, enhanced by ganja smoking, is
itself a boon to production. Ganja provides the impetus to accomplish
work on both the individual and group level. It has traditionally been
advantageous for cane workers to smoke ganja, and remains so for hand-
loading gangs; farmer-laborers in Leyburn and fishing crews in Buckland
also derive distinct economic benefits through the social use of ganja.
Generally speaking, the relationships established in ganja-smoking
circles are beneficial in helping individuals of all three communities deal
with the limitations of the socioeconomic milieu in which they work and
live. In some situations, such as the loading spells of Chelsea and co-
working groups in Leyburn, a fairly rigid system of mutual obligations
revolves around ganja use.. Despite the class-linked stigmas attached to heavy ganja use , users tend to associate initiation to
smoking with the entrance to a responsible life."
- http://www.cifas.us/material/working-men-and-ganja-marijuana-use-rural-jamaica


ricketzz: Posted: August 19, 2014 10:20 a.m.

There has been very little study since due to the War on Drugs. Nature knows more than Dick Nixon.


chefgirl358: Posted: August 19, 2014 1:44 p.m.

Here's a great article detailing exactly the kinds of losers and total zeroes that are headlining the dope industry.

http://www.latimes.com/local/great-reads/la-me-c1-lake-county-weed-20140815-story.html#page=1


CaptGene: Posted: August 19, 2014 2:38 p.m.

cricketzz intentionally left this out of the quote from the "study":

"Workers are compelled to give ganja, accept ganja, and repay ganja, and failure to do so may result in withdrawal of co-operation and support from co-workers."

Please explain why you would leave this out.


ricketzz: Posted: August 20, 2014 11:30 a.m.

For a 1st World analogue, substitute "lunch", or "beer" for "Ganja".


ricketzz: Posted: August 20, 2014 11:45 a.m.

chefgirl358: were you forced to watch "Dragnet 1968" during your formative years? Weed has been a folk medicine and soft intoxicant and excellent fiber for many millennia; it can be refined to something that will make a dangerous person more dangerous (Hashish: assasin); it can be made into great sails to explore the world (cannabis: canvas); CBDs are giving children with crippling gran mal seizures every waking hour blessed relief after chemistry based medicines all failed. The industry coming on stream will be minimally disruptive unless you make engineered wood, paper, shot in the dark medicine, or distilled spirits. The DEA and or the President merely has to remove cannabis from the list of Controlled Substances, where it has never belonged. This will allow every dollar (just about) ever spent on legal pot to be deposited in banks. Right now there are Breaking Bad storage lockers with pallets of money all over California. What would be the effect of repatriating this cash?



You need to be a registered user to post a comment. Please click here to register.

The Signal encourages readers to interact with one another, following the guidelines outlined in our Comment/Moderation Policy. Click here to read it.

To report offensive or inappropriate comments, e-mail abuse@signalscv.com. The content posted from readers of signalscv.com does not necessarily represent the views of The Signal or Morris Multimedia. By submitting this form you agree to the terms and conditions listed above. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

 
 

Powered By
Morris Technology
Please wait ...